Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisexualism (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Antisexualism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't read ref 1, but none of the refs listed in the religious section mention the term. The nonreligious are minor news sources mentioning the community. One of the only jounral articles uses the term in a different context completely and nothing comes up on google books. This strikes me as OR with material on celibacy and sexual repression brought in to legitimise the term without supporting sources. Hence it is detracting from scholarly articles and material by being here and should be merged elsewhere to other medical/psychological articles and backed up by reliable secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - article seems to not be properly sourced and not much warrants a keep vote. Merge and remove. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, require inline citation of improved sources. Let this nomination stay the full 7 days - no "snow" actions, please. At the first nomination, !voted "keep", reasoning Sufficient references have been found; perhaps the nom would have done better to look for them than to complain about their absence; nothing has changed since then, so I couldn't agree more.  After that keep result, I expected that the topic of the movement originators would receive serious cited academic coverage. Instead, it appears that the far less organized, but much more widespread notion, or viewpoint has been discussed in the literature. See the plentiful Scholar and Books search results. At this point, the general topic meets WP:GNG, that is, more than enough informed, independent, reliable sources exist (if not currently cited) to support the article, so deletion is not the appropriate remedy, per WP:PRESERVE. Editing to cite better sources is merited, however, and I hope this AfD kicks that process into gear. --Lexein (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is wierd -when you use inverted commas around a single word a whole different bunch of search items come up in google books. Ok, am satisfied, so this can be withdrawn. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's a valid topic in the philosophy of sexuality (Kant particularly), although I'm not sure about the title: the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to "Metaphysical Sexual Pessimism". There's a lot of sources on the Christian churches' attitude to sex and abstinence (I'm not sure if that's covered in more depth elsewhere but Sexual_abstinence is very brief). There are other areas to cover than just the church and Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko (it does feel a bit like a coatrack for his ideas). Possibly the topic could be treated better in another way, or is covered elsewhere, but it's a reasonable subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily able to find literally hundreds of potential secondary sources among books. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first time I came upon this article, I was tempted to nominate it for deletion.  It was terrible (much worse than it is now), and it relied on some really bad sources.  After I cleaned up the article a bit and added a few sources, I came to the conclusion that its notability is at least debatable.  It needs a rewrite, but I'm simply too lazy and too uninterested in the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's basically notable, but there have been problems in finding sources that deal with it as a whole (as opposed to sources that deal with various individual historical details, of which there are plenty)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.